funding for to the contrary provided by the cornell douglas foundation committed to encouraging stewardship of the environment. land conservation, watershed protection and eliminating harmful chemicals. additional funding provided by the colcom foundation. the wallace genetic foundation. the oak foundation. the e rhode islands and the carpenter foundation. >> this week on to the contrary... first, the label pro-choice may be passe. then commercial sex. should it be legal to sell but not purchased? behind the headlines, investing with a gender lens.

hello i'm bonnie erbe welcome to to the contrary news and social trends. up first, the future for abortion rights advocates. claiming it no longer represents the range of women's health and economic issue. they also need to appeal to a new generation of young women who issue labels are are not single issue voters. do not expect a new catchphrase soon. former pro-choice advocates say abortion and birth control issues are more complex. antiabortion advocates call the

end of pro-choice a victory. congressman norton is the term pro-choice passe? >> you know, bonnie, it is a permanent slogan half the advertisers. language must appeal to the generation to which it is addressed. >> i think what has become passe is the idea that abortion anytime for any reason is ok. i think most americans are increasingly uncomfortable with that and you are seeing it play out in the voter box in the state. >> the issues hit home economically and with regard to women's health contraception in particular it is a bit passe. >> interestingly, millennials identify themselves an pro-choice and pro-life. and they are moving beyond the gender politics to more full force issues like economics issue. >> i can see you are a longtime activist in the pro-choice movement and very involved in

it. i can see dropping the term but i was confused that they did not come up with another term. you need a little slogan, right? >> i think what has happened i was on the board about seven years ago in virginia and when we had legislators in virginia trying to take birth control away from women in virginia, suddenly everybody who called us were panicked about birth control. and what happened was the field became wider. we were not myopically concerned about just the issue of choice. it broadened and it was a reaction our language changed as a reaction to what was happening out in the political realm. >> well, why wasn't the conversation ok there's so much more going on so what are we going to change what we are to? a woman. let's try taking that. >> and that could happen. when i was involved they changed

their name from the long national abortion rights to pro-choice. because at that point pro-choice when they did their study 10 years ago it was something people could relate to. it is a broader range of issues and you take away birth control and it is a economic issue for families when 99% of americans used contraception to control the size of their family this is a bigger issue than just a choice issue. >> and it is a political issue. let's be clear. some things working people do not decide they need to change it. and the reason you are seeing a change is they have r reoiled it is not -- realized it is not a good space to be in. other battles like birth control that are more winnable so let's move there. and it is a victory for the pro-life side does it mean the country moved more towards

placing restrictions on abortion laws? that is evidence. but one of the reasons they are moving is because it is not a great slogan at the ballot box. >> remember pro-choice came out of a period when there was no choice. and now that has changed not entirely i must say. in and the justice had to except step in in mississippi to keep the last clinic from going out of existence. and pro it was happenstance. pro gun or not pro gun. pro is necessary. reproductive health struck me as important. and maybe that is because i read history. and history tells us that only in the 20th century did women begin to live longer than men. and the reason was because of could be tra exception and abortion. >> and safer births. >> safer births.

in other words the health notion is so broad and so much related to your very being as a woman that it is always seemed to me to be about your own personal health. >> do you think that by dropping the slogan they will get more women onboard? >> i don't think that is the point. i think nobody wants to have a passe slogan. >> and when you think about it, it frames this as something that is a choice. and frankly if you don't have any money, there's no choice for you anyway. i never thought it was a very good name because it discounted a lot of women who are in major trouble if they cannot control their reproductive situation. >> and can you think of a term that would include them? >> really can't. because now when we have politicians trying to redefine rape and prescribing the invasive reproductive health procedures from legislative chambers all these unbelievable

issues are not under one umbrella. i cannot think of one phrase or one word, the idea of reserving reproductive health is the best one. >> as a millennial i understand that young people they have see the issues as moved on and that is why are you not seeing them as active. pew did a study on millennials' perception of gay marriage and rape and end of abortion rights and they see themselves as pro-life but also supporting abortion because it is a done deal to many of them. and what is -- >> what would wake them up? to see that it's very fluid and it's based on one supreme court decision under a supreme court that was very different from the one today and if it were before the court today there probably would not be nationalized choice if you will. >> i think it's interesting what is going to wake them up and i think it goes back to the

economic issues. it's less -- if i have money to pay for my abortion and more do i have a job right now? unemployment at 15% for millennials they are much more worried about can i get off my parents couch rather than the reproductive issues and that is a hard thing. >> but that is a reality. it doesn't mean they are -- the young women are going to stop having sex and they there aren't going to be unintended pregnancies. >> more have access to contraception and birth control than at a time in this country. most is how can i get a job and paying off my student loans and people worry about what is important to them at that moment. >> but they are taking for granted the 1973 decision and the moment that gets to be in jeopardy you willee them jump to the floor because they are the women who are of

childbearing age. >> let us know what you think. follow me on twitter@@. from abortion rights to prostitution. should commercial sex be legal? it's dividing those in europe. an article looks at two opposing european approaches to prostitution. legalized prostitution in the netherlands and germany failed to curb the abuses blamed on prohibition. in response the swedish model which bans the purchase but not the sale of sex is sweeping europe. >> criminalizes johns but not prostitutes. and the reason that it's spreading is there is a widespread sense in europe that experiments with legalization rather than making life better for people in sex industry which was part of what the laws were intended to do it's made things worse while increasing trafficking in the power of

organized crime. >> norway and iceland adopted the swedish model in 2009. france and ireland are considering it. the european parliament approved a resolution calling on all member governments to adopt the swedish still law. after interviewing sex workers, politicians, police and activists, goldberg reports the swedish model does cut down on prostitution but at a cost to sex workers by increasing the stigma and driving the work underground. >> some of the women will pose the swedish model because it interferes with their business and work. but there are ways that you could tweak the swedish model to protect the women in the sex industry from eviction to make it clearer 0 in the social services regulations that being in sex work is not a valid reason to take the children away. >> the debate extends beyond europe. the canadian supreme court struck down the antiprostitution

law and is considering the swedish model. in the u.s. curbing demand is growing in popularity but meant increasing penalties on johns without decriminalizing sex workers. it's interesting, because of sex trafficking and the fact that it's so omni present in the united states, a lot of states fewer than 20 passed safe harbor laws which means when they catch an underaged prostitute they do not arrest them they put them in treatment and assume they have been trafficked and put them in treatment. but why so maybe we are moving toward the swedish model but why have we not always penalized the johns unless the women alone? >> i think we should be penalizing the johns but i don't think we should be encouraging women to sell their bodies for sex. even if that is a woman's choice it is a good thing for them in the long-run or their children.

under this law they are saying if a woman is sell herself for sex it is ok that her two-year-old is next door. >> or drugged under the bed as the story. >> these are dangerous things. i think we absolutely should not go after the johns for sure, but we should not make this the kind of career that somebody would want to go into. >> i agree with that. but i must say, too, there is a reason why they call it what it is. the oldest occupation in the world. and the notion of a woman selling her body and making a career, the first thing i'm trying to think about what can we do to keep it from happening. >> in europe at least where they are less uptight about it i'm not advocating it but the other side there are grown women who do this for a living who like the fact that they make more

money than if they were cleaning houses. >> i think europe and all of us ought to be thinking more about regulation than abolition. and how do you regulate as opposed to assuming for the libertarians in a world which which a woman has the right to make the choice that you can wipe it off the face of the earth. and i think there is a difference between trafficking and being a professional prostitute. >> that is a huge difference. >> the reality of the women's lives is this is not really a choice this is the last resort. and i lived in europe for four years. and there was a park that i walked by every night to come home. and i saw these women. and they were the most desperate women. and they are in switzerland, they did not outlaw anything but -- they did outlaw pimping. if someone tried to manage the

women or trying to keep out organized crime. there was a situation here in america in rhode island where a mistake was made in the law so that indoor prostitution was legal. and so from 2004-2009 they found interesting things they studied those five years that gonorrhea was down by 40% and the reason was those women having sex could say you have to wear a condom or i can report you to the police because there was a legal status. i view it that these women are victims. but on the other hand if there's a regulation that can protect their health and to keep out organized crime maybe there's something there. but it is a desperate line of work. >> i mean i'm glad we are making a distinction between prostitutes and sex workers is a misnomer like the pretty woman movie where julia roberts was a

prostitute but the end goal was getting out. and we can focus on the initial let's keep them healthy and we want everyone to be healthy but at the same time we should be looking to the long-term how do we get them out of the lifestyle and address the systemic issues that make this lifestyle or choice if you call it a choice, why that is appealing to so many women so many children and young men as well. >> and is penalizing the guys who buy the sex that go after the demand is the that the best way to cut it back? if there is no demand? >> that is one way but we have to be very careful that we want to legitimize something that says this is an ok thing to do. and to be worried that gosh women will feel bad because they are not respected for doing this. they shouldn't be respected for selling their bodies i do not think that is a message that we

want any woman i don't care how old or young to think it is an ok thing. so the swedish law does that. it's saying -- >> it means they don't get arrested. >> it doesn't mean they are all of a sudden regarded in the same way as the president of oxford or cambridge university would be. >> and there is reason they are not. and why? because it is not a good profession and good for women. and it is a very dangerous road. >> when you consider what is happening in the country right now where generally it is these victimized women who are prosecuted and possibly trafficked in their history and you know, i do think it makes more sense than doing what we are doing now. >> all right. investing in women. we've been covering for decades how women invest differently than men how they run companies differently. but there is a new term called gender lens investing which incorporates those trends and more.

i asked jackie vanderburg of u.s. trust how she defines gender lens investing. i will say i see three really common strategies and one is a gender lens around ownership: um, what, how do you invest in women entrepreneurs across the board. one is the gender lens on leadership: how do you invest in companies that are thoughtful about enhancing and and supporting women's leadership from the board all the way through the supply chain. and then the third is a gender lens on products and services: investing in companies that, if they are successful, support and address challenges for women and girls. gender lens investing is a growing trend as women's economic power increases: we also know that women's um economic power is rising around the world. so if you're not understanding the opportunity for women's leadership in terms of investing in companies that are run by women, um you are potentially missing opportunities and so we're starting to see very savvy investors use that uh because they understand, bonnie, that implicit bias, right,) harvard did some research recently that they gave um, investors the exact same presentation with a

male voice and a, a female voice and 60% more investors invested in the male voice company. so what savvy folks are realizing is that implicit bias is leaving very smart women entrepreneurs without investment capital. and for a while it was believed investing in women-owned and women-run companies may not profitable. but in 2013 us trust' women and girls equality strategy beat the s&p 1500 benchmark by 360 basis points. jackie vanderbrug has started leading tours for gender lens investors to show them how other countries do it: so the gender lens investing trip to brazil is to look at the opportunities to invest with the gender lens across the spectrum and so we look at everything from very small companies that are starting in the favelas to companies that are already at 60 million dollars in franchises to

companies like ito. so itau, the largest bank in brazil, has a specific strategy to invest in women entrepreneurs because they realize that women are over 50% of the entrepreneurs in brazil and there were only 25% of itau's book. just a small but growing percentage of americans are investing through a gender lens. i asked jackie vanderbrug who they are: there's two ways to look at that. one is smart investors across the board. so at us trust we do a lot of research and our most recent research in terms of high net worth individuals said that over 50% of those surveyed were interested in the way that their investments reflected their social or environmental values. we also know though that although smart investors across the board, disproportionately women, so women are 30% more likely than men to say that they want their values reflected, and disproportionately millennials--79% of millennials

are now saying that they want their investment portfolios to reflect their values. >> so i wonder if gender lens invest something a way because she said 60% of the people who heard the male voice would invest with the male voice versus the female voice. is it just a way of leveling the playing field? >> well, i think it is a way of letting investors take advantage of a great opportunity. because pepperdine and credit suisse have done the studies and shown the companies with women in leadership make more money and we've seen it in social media when a company does something like lululemon had a comment made by someone, and you heard the reaction on social media. i think what jackie is doing is to get women to make that reaction but with their dollars. and over the next 40 years, you will see a huge transfer of

wealth going to women and what all the initiatives are trying to do, sally's elevate fund and jackie's funds, is to try to make the women investors understand that you can show your values in the way you invest and you will make money doing it. >> and the study you cited because there was not a huge difference between the standard & poors 1500 and u.s. trust gender equity fund. so have you seen bigger differences? there was a difference and it was any investor would want to capitalize on that difference. a difference is better is better. >> is it causal. maybe it had something to do with the company and this is a typical woman and giving you the big picture. can you cherry pick studies and make it look like it is the biggest thing that happened. these are the values you would like to support companies that are good to women and you will make money.

we don't want to overpromise but say it makes sense let's encourage this in the marketplace because it's better for all of us. we have seen the gdp and productivity go up because of women and their labor participation. why shouldn't we reward the women running the companies. >> value investing is not new. at some point it was going to make itself its way around gender to the gender lens. i have to say that i'm still not convinced your notion about causality is very important here. at bottom i think it's about a self conscious women's market. and that market drives everything, including the gender lens. >> why is it that millennials are more likely to be value investors than earlier generations? >> i think millennials are much broader they are much more open than a lot of other generations are to things lycras and gender and more welcoming. a lot of lenses that past

generations have viewed feminism or whether it's race, millennials do not look through those lenses. is this a strong company and led by a woman that is fantastic but it doesn't have to be. instead of putting fetch niche first we put value and productivity. >> it's interesting that you say that. my daughter was floored when twitter came out with the ipo without a woman on the board. she was going this is crazy. >> did she quit using twitter? >> she was part of the robust twitter campaign that resulted in a woman being put on the board. >> and that say huge piece and you mentioned this was the social media whether it's gender lens or a host of other issues that people place value on, i want to invest in this company because they do or do not support that there are so many tools that make companies far more transparent than some would

like to be. but far more transparent across the board and people have it on their phone now as to who does starbucks do what i like? american express? it becomes a new world. >> and you've seen google releasing the figures on equal pay for employees. and now the other companies in silicon valley go we have to be transparent. the more transparency is better. >> that is the point. we know more about companies than we knew. >> you know, investors are always looking for unused markets that have not been developed yet. third women in developing nations starting small businesses. is that the next one? >> well, i think you know, they say that if you just counted the women who were not being utilized in the workforce in many countries we have great labor participation and that would be like having a continent

joining our economy. and so there is a great opportunity there. and i think that the markets are starting to recognize that. >> that is it for this edition. follow me on twitter and visit our website pbs.org/tothecontrary, and whether you agree or think to the contrary see you next week. funding for to the contrary

provided by the cornell dowling last foundation, committed to encouraging stewardship of the environment, land conservation, watershed protection and eliminating harmful chemicals. additional funding provided by the colcom foundation, the wallace genetic foundation, the oak foundation, the e rhodes and the carpenter foundation. for a transcript or to see an on-line version of this episode of to the contrary visit pbs.org/tothecontrary.

>> from washington, the mclaughlin group. the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> the mclaughlin group is brought to you by seaman's. everyday, seaman's answers are helping to build the future of america. seaman's. answers. >> we never thought we would be farming wind out here. not just building jobs here. it is helping our community. >> seaman's has received a major order of wind turbines. >> this is what we do. >> the fact that